My theory is that Benghazi attack happened to cover up the fact the weapons were being given to the enemy. I think there was a stand down to make
sure the men at the embassy were killed, so they couldn't speak of what was really happening. I'm not sure if they didn't know in the beginning
and found out and threatened to uncover the truth or what. It just doesn't make sense to tell the military to stand down when Americans were being
killed on American soil at the Embassy.

Now after 3 days, we have resignations by major player(s) (Petraeus, possibly Hillary) in the Benghazi attack.

Something is up and I hope it all comes out, every little detail.

I think we will find that Obama was and still is more involved than the press will ever state.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
The fact that he came out from the gate admitting an affair means there is A LOT more salacious stuff to follow. Normally you don't lead with
that...it trickles out.

He wanted to lob an info bomb that he hoped would have everyone chasing shadows - in order to deflect the full truth.

Now, the question is...does that truth pertain to the Administration and Benghazi or does it pertain to his own human frailties and proclivities?

My guess is this was being held as a "ace in the hole" type event. Director Petraeus was in a serious bind here: tow the party/administration line
or we expose your affair. My hopes is he jumped the gun, beat the administration to the punch and bowed out.

Welcome Welcome to “Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs,” the only comprehensive website on the famous Reagan-era government scandal, which
stemmed from the U.S. government’s policies toward two seemingly unrelated countries, Nicaragua and Iran. Despite stated and repeated denials to
Congress and to the public, Reagan Administration officials supported the militant contra rebels in Nicaragua and sold arms to a hostile Iranian
government. These events have led to questions about the appropriateness of covert operations, congressional oversight, and even the presidential
power to pardon.

Benghazi-Gate...JUST caught fire.
Even MSNBC can smell the smoke now.
It may take several months, but the truth will NOW definitely come out.
With something this big...it ALL begins and ends with Obama.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
i'll add further to this and say that Patraeus is about as close to an Eisenhower as we've had since.

what was it he 'warned' us about back in the day. :shk:

Thanks for the premium nightmare, but my eyes aren't closed yet.
Ike's dissimilarity to Patreus' lack of controllability (doc'd) did a goose step
/bump march up both arms. If PTB thought Patreus was going to jump
ship yet stay "in" to properly head up a mutiny from the civilian side, what
could that mean for the we're-going-hot timeline??
Would that imply in the older scenario the Shop (and Harriman in particular)
got Eisenhower "in" to slightly liquify him? He didn't need much steering with
that batch of golf buddies around, and was always in the game... fig AND lit.
I personally viewed the Washington-goes-to-Washington phenomenon as more
than just a populist knee-jerk. Last up-thumb: Gen. Eisenhower was a heckuva
politician, even with the stars on: from accounts he ran the European theatre
like a back lot... maybe a little too tight for the fast and loose of normal chaos.
The whole NeoCamp was pushing Patreus to take a 2016 nod; maybe this is the
squelch. I guess we don't have to worry about any NeoCon spoons in the
communist consomme' this four-banger.
ps bump because it's so scary and plausible.
pps and please tell me the deal with wearing the Class A running a technically
civilian service? Didn't he and Mike Hayden get the Politbureau memo??? JHC:fail...

The Iran-Contra mess was and is a black-mark on American foreign policy decisions. The difference was they had one man that could run the
interference and took the fall for then President Reagan. In this case, it seems no matter who gets thrown in front of the bus, the bus keeps on
going. It could be because of the original attempt to pin it all on an obscure internet video...

The Iran-Contra mess was and is a black-mark on American foreign policy decisions. The difference was they had one man that could run the
interference and took the fall for then President Reagan. In this case, it seems no matter who gets thrown in front of the bus, the bus keeps on
going. It could be because of the original attempt to pin it all on an obscure internet video...

Originally posted by IsawWHATtheyDID
my conspiracy senses are tingling. how many rats have been jumping ship, or making preperations to jump? i believe holder is contemplating to. could
just be because he caught caught cheating or something embarrassing about his life is about to come to light, or something big this way comes, and
they are starting to head to their bunkers.

Bump ISaw! and bingo for a later comment that this guy was almost an Eisenhower,
but I submit undeniably NeoCon. For the present jungle color, probably undesirable.

You know that one scene in the movie Crash, where the one cop doesn't want to ride in his cop partner's car anymore (Matt Dhillon.) So the first cop
goes to the commissioner asking to be transferred and the comish was basically like 'ok, we can tell the truth and say it's because your partner is a
dirt bag and racist- which would hurt my reputation- OR we can say it's because of some embarrassing personal issue of yours.' And recommends the made
up reason to be "uncontrolled flatulence"....

Well this smells like a case of some uncontrolled flatulence to me. Er, sorry, haha.

Anyways, maybe this is what it is, the say 'ok, we don't you around anymore, or you don't want to be around anymore riding with us in the car, so
we'll just call it extramarital affair, we'll give you a nice pension and no drama no controversy and we can both walk away and stick the that
particular story and avoid too much scrutiny.

Or maybe he really did just have an extramarital affair. Who knows, sounds sort of fishy though, so soon after election results, also considering the
abrupt and unexpected nature on the resignation.

edit on 9-11-2012 by Runciter33 because: the regular reasons. I wanted to change it up a bit

They are trying to sweep this under the rug.
I think over the weekend or early next week something will happen to pull America's attention from Benghazi.
As much as I would like to see the truth come out about what happened, I don't believe we will ever know all of it or even most of it.
Quad

The one that our envoy Susan Rice peddled on all the talk-shows....are you being obtuse or really asking? Or maybe you thought I was saying a video
related to the Iran-Contra affair...I am not sure what you asking here.

She went to task on Sept 16th, stating that the attacks stemmed from a protest over the anti-Islam internet "film".

Eisenhower had an affair too...but HE didn't resign. THIS is ALL about Benghazi. en.wikipedia.org...

Admittedly.. and thanks for the backstory on Ike's chauffer.
although I'm no rabid historian, WOW about '42 to '45.
Could be just a purge at present of the troublesome potential
witnesses with 'traction'. Patreus definitely got his tires greased...
and cheap for sure, in consideration of what he knows about Benghazi.

When Obama tried to blame the cia for Benghazi
he stated he never gave a stand down order and that it was the CIA, it was Hillary.
General P. came straight out and stated as CIA director,
THE CIA NEVER gave a stand down order. They found
his vice/s that everyone has, and knowing he was going
to have to testify and turn over the evidence on Benghazi
they unilaterally decided to use the dirt, gave "her" some money
or a good comfy job for spilling
the beans and basically blackmailed him into either lying about Benghazi
or expose the affair. ..

When Obama tried to blame the cia for Benghazi
he stated he never gave a stand down order and that it was the CIA, it was Hillary.
General P. came straight out and stated as CIA director,
THE CIA NEVER gave a stand down order. They found
his vice/s that everyone has, and knowing he was going
to have to testify and turn over the evidence on Benghazi
they unilaterally decided to use the dirt, gave "her" some money
or a good comfy job for spilling
the beans and basically blackmailed him into either lying about Benghazi
or expose the affair. ..

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.